I mean… isn’t the entire point of a strike to demonstrate the value of your labor by letting your employer and the general public see the negative consequences when you collectively withhold it?
Judge Mark Pittman said a strike would hurt BNSF and could cause significant damage to the economy because of the role the railroad plays in delivering all kinds of goods.
I mean… isn’t the entire point of a strike to demonstrate the value of your labor by letting your employer and the general public see the negative consequences when you collectively withhold it?
Yes, but... ...certain industries have to have approval to strike because of how essential they are to the economy. I don't agree with the stance/policy/law, but there it is. Railroad companies...
Yes, but...
and could cause significant damage to the economy
...certain industries have to have approval to strike because of how essential they are to the economy. I don't agree with the stance/policy/law, but there it is.
Railroad companies have moved toward tighter "more streamlined" operational model called Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) where fewer, but longer, trains are run on a very tight schedule and allows them to cut costs to weather changes in future shipping trends. The companies argue that this increases overall efficiency and reduces the number of trucks carrying cargo on the road, the unions argue that it reduces both the number of jobs and the time those workers have to ensure the trains, rails, and switchgear are all safe; there are anonymous reports from workers that safety checks are being missed, maintenance is being deferred to later and later dates, and that paperwork saying safety checks have been made is being falsified. Proponents say it can reduce carbon emissions by moving long-haul trucking to rail instead, opponents say it's nothing more than an idea cooked up by Wall Street to bolster short term profits without addressing the long term consequences and the increased costs of shipping by rail caused by the demand for higher revenues from Wall Street has shifted many shippers to switch back to cheaper long-haul trucking instead, increasing the emissions PSR would allegedly eliminate.
Facts are the number of railroad employees over the past decade have dropped by a third, 25% in the last 5 years, while BNSF NET profits haven't dipped below $1B per quarter in the last 5 years and continued to grow even during the pandemic. Fewer workers with less time to maintain the same amount of railway is going to lead to disaster, no other way to cut it.
It's unlikely. Railroad and Airline workers are held from striking by the Railway Labor Act, which allows strikes only after exhausting arbitration options. Federal Employees cannot strike,...
It's unlikely. Railroad and Airline workers are held from striking by the Railway Labor Act, which allows strikes only after exhausting arbitration options. Federal Employees cannot strike, state/local government employees in many states cannot strike.
It's law; likely written so the economic hit (or huge shutdowns that would occur like the 1981 ATC strike) doesn't happen over "minor disputes." So the judge is unlikely taking the current economic state into consideration and more likely considers BNSF punishing workers for using sick days a "minor dispute."
An illegal strike, and in this case they are all fired (striking workers are generally protected from being fired) and barred from being federal employees ever again.
An illegal strike, and in this case they are all fired (striking workers are generally protected from being fired) and barred from being federal employees ever again.
BNSF railroad’s two biggest unions that represent 17,000 workers won’t be able to go on strike over a new attendance policy they say would penalize employees for missing work for any reason.
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a strike would likely violate federal law because under their contracts railroad unions aren’t allowed to strike over minor disputes.
Judge Mark Pittman said a strike would hurt BNSF and could cause significant damage to the economy because of the role the railroad plays in delivering all kinds of goods.
I mean… isn’t the entire point of a strike to demonstrate the value of your labor by letting your employer and the general public see the negative consequences when you collectively withhold it?
Yes, but...
...certain industries have to have approval to strike because of how essential they are to the economy. I don't agree with the stance/policy/law, but there it is.
Railroad companies have moved toward tighter "more streamlined" operational model called Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) where fewer, but longer, trains are run on a very tight schedule and allows them to cut costs to weather changes in future shipping trends. The companies argue that this increases overall efficiency and reduces the number of trucks carrying cargo on the road, the unions argue that it reduces both the number of jobs and the time those workers have to ensure the trains, rails, and switchgear are all safe; there are anonymous reports from workers that safety checks are being missed, maintenance is being deferred to later and later dates, and that paperwork saying safety checks have been made is being falsified. Proponents say it can reduce carbon emissions by moving long-haul trucking to rail instead, opponents say it's nothing more than an idea cooked up by Wall Street to bolster short term profits without addressing the long term consequences and the increased costs of shipping by rail caused by the demand for higher revenues from Wall Street has shifted many shippers to switch back to cheaper long-haul trucking instead, increasing the emissions PSR would allegedly eliminate.
Facts are the number of railroad employees over the past decade have dropped by a third, 25% in the last 5 years, while BNSF NET profits haven't dipped below $1B per quarter in the last 5 years and continued to grow even during the pandemic. Fewer workers with less time to maintain the same amount of railway is going to lead to disaster, no other way to cut it.
It's unlikely. Railroad and Airline workers are held from striking by the Railway Labor Act, which allows strikes only after exhausting arbitration options. Federal Employees cannot strike, state/local government employees in many states cannot strike.
It's law; likely written so the economic hit (or huge shutdowns that would occur like the 1981 ATC strike) doesn't happen over "minor disputes." So the judge is unlikely taking the current economic state into consideration and more likely considers BNSF punishing workers for using sick days a "minor dispute."
I dont get how one can make it illegal to strike... What happens if the workers just... refuse to show up? what is a strike other than that?
An illegal strike, and in this case they are all fired (striking workers are generally protected from being fired) and barred from being federal employees ever again.